Sentences with phrase «point i do disagree»

The one point I do disagree with is rushing to meet someone after one or two emails.

The point I do disagree with is not that the effect exists at all, but that it can overwhelm the anthropogenic influence.

Not exact matches

When someone disagrees with me, I listen to his or her point of view (Hint: If the answer is no or rarely, always start a disagreement with «What do you think?»

The only point I disagree is that I do not believe Jason Kenney is clever at all.

So on that point I don't disagree with my esteemed colleague Mr. O.

I understand your point and don't disagree.

First, when you say Einstein / Hawking came up with specific things that supports your point, it's not holy writ, they could be wrong, so disagreeing with them doesn't make me wrong.

Even if Smith and I end up disagreeing on that point, we could still agree on his anthropology (as I think we do) and on his vision for Christian formation and the university (and I do think we're closer than I let on).

My point was that though I disagree with his position it does not follow that the only alternative is to embrace an «anything goes» philosophy.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree at this point though, because this is turning into quite an emotionally and mentally demanding discussion which I'm afraid I don't have the time or energy for right now.

I still disagree that it was the right thing to do at that point in time.

Just because I disagree and you will not sway me doesn't mean I don't get the point... what is it with you arrogant atheist.

dvdr «Just because I disagree and you will not sway me doesn't mean I don't get the point... what is it with you arrogant atheist.»

For instance, when in the course of discussion it is clear that the one receiving such admonishment actually disagrees with the point being made, then continued dogging attempts to force the other party to change does indeed become «manipulative coercion».

I agree with Gary's point: «when in the course of discussion it is clear that the one receiving such admonishment actually disagrees with the point being made, then continued dogging attempts to force the other party to change does indeed become «manipulative coercion.»»

Yes, we disagree on what his mission was, or what it all means from a cosmological perspective, but that doesn't mean we have to argue about those points.

So, I guess I am wondering... as you obviously disagree with Jeremy on this doctrinal point, does that mean you get a pass on loving him?

@US Patriot If a person follows the teachings of Jesus to his best ability, maybe even without knowing about Jesus, I think only God can judge whether he is Christian enough, but I don't mind you disagreeing on that point.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you (fundementally at least) on that point.

At some point we have to agree to disagree, just because you do nt agree with someones views or beliefs dosnt meen your judging them.

Jason, I agree with your assessment of some of the so called Christian religions out there that are not promoting the true gospel of Jesus Christ but I do disagree on one point.

Thanks Jeremy, However, I must disagree with at least one of your statements (simply because I did not read the entire article, only the main points).

I'm just pointing out that the Anti-Defamation League disagrees with you, but don't let the facts get in the way, I'm sure the name - calling fully supports your position... some how...

Now, if we accept «being opposed to war for any reason» as a working definition, I would say, I do agree with some of your points in your discussion with MarkR, but disagree with much of your basic premises.

Of course I do not believe that at all and I thought I pointed out that you disagree with them already so I am a bit confused by your comments.

@Shane I don't totally disagree with your point, but I'm afraid that all too many people DO blame ChristianitDO blame Christianity.

You are welcome to disagree, and you are free to do so in whatever manner you choose; if your response is some type of irrational, hate - driven attack on someone else's way of life, though, you really are contributing more to my point then your own.

Sayer's biography has more detail than Wilson's, disagrees with Wilson on some points, is not as readable or as witty and does not attempt to probe Lewis's psyche in the way Wilson does.

I don't disagree, but am merely pointing out that the evidence presented thus far falls short — and smells fishy (see original post).

If you disagree, which you may, especially if your beliefs are cobbled together from one or more of the zillion interpretations of the BIble, then my point is that your god is very confusing: a god that creates hells and a god that didn't do a good job creating the earth?

Another summarized the gospel according to MTS in two points: «God does have a sense of humor, and it is possible to be good and dear friends with people whom you disagree with theologically.»

I did not disagree with any theological point you made.

David is right to point to the inclusivity of the Gospel message; I don't think anyone disagrees that such a dynamic exists in Christian theology.

So often, we see people in these discussions doing Scripture combat by throwing verses at those they disagree with, and if that was not your intent, then that is the point at which I misread you.

Maybe I'm just an optimist, but I believe that to have unity in the church we need to get to the point where we don't just split when we disagree.

Why do you think it is that both Muslim terrorists and Christian fundamentalists MUST use the same math and chemistry, but can disagree on almost every point about god??

As has been pointed out many people disagree, using the same scripture you do.

So while I do like your post I disagree with you on these points.

@ Let us Pray I do nt disagree with you on some of your points but the very last... You are right the military comes first, but you forget that what they do in the miltary is their life, their job....

I am not telling you what to believe, but please be respectful to those that disagree and do not twist the words of the Bible to prove your point.

So can we disagree with the theology of others, and do our best to point out to people where they are wrong?

@ b4 — then I'll ask: why does god (a-ssuming god exists, which point we disagree on) why does god allow suffering when god a-ssumedly has the power to stop it.

And I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just saying that @jc's point would be more arguable, perhaps, as a weak analogy fallacy rather that the ad hominem s / he chose, since the crux of the argument is the comparison, not the person making the argument.

I am not disagreeing that any of the points are important (I certainly don't think abuse should be tolerated), but wonder how you draw the lines?

Now i completely disagree with every single point of this article, but i do nt need to condemn her.

You sir are an idiot, i will continue to believe so, But at the same time, i will make note, that i did not come on here to point out how flawed your beliefs are, it only lead down that road because you took it there, i was pointing out, that it does none of us good to sit here and disagree and try to disprove one another's beliefs, you have your own i have mine, i know something to be true, and you somehow believe what you believe, i'm apparently not going to change your mind and you have no shot at disproving my beliefs so why attack eachothers beliefs?

So, in this post, my purpose is to point to a side effect of a growing acceptance of alcohol, and no one should disagree with the importance of this topic (unless you don't believe in alcoholism).

I do respectfully disagree on one point.

I don't know how Ed Stetzer came up with this list, but I disagree with each one of the points.

This was your response: «I don't know how Ed Stetzer came up with this list, but I disagree with each one of the points.